From pycyn@aol.com Mon Sep 16 01:31:53 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 16 Sep 2002 08:31:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 73290 invoked from network); 16 Sep 2002 08:31:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 16 Sep 2002 08:31:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d04.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.36) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 16 Sep 2002 08:31:52 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.10.) id r.189.e0bd356 (18707) for ; Mon, 16 Sep 2002 04:31:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <189.e0bd356.2ab6f0f3@aol.com> Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 04:31:47 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: I like chocolate To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_189.e0bd356.2ab6f0f3_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_189.e0bd356.2ab6f0f3_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/15/2002 4:31:11 PM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@lycos.co.uk writes: << > > Having a delusion is coverd by the usually safe {mi viska li'i > > sincrboa} > > Is that {mi viska se li'i (zo'e) sincrboa}? -- Which is okay, > though it'd be nice to be able to do it without resorting to > tanru. Or is it {mi viska lo li'i sincrboa}? -- Which would mean > seeing an experience -- not really what is wanted. > >> Oops! I see that someone has tinkered yet again with an unbroken concept to make a useless one (we all know where to find {lifri}, which to add insult to injusry uses {li'i} phrases as an object). I was thinking of the good old day when this idea first went round and it stood in the same relation to expreiences as {nu} does to events and so {viska lo li'i} made prefect sense, as good, anyhow, as {lifri lo nu}. Sorry to see the old way go; especially since nothing was gained. --part1_189.e0bd356.2ab6f0f3_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/15/2002 4:31:11 PM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@lycos.co.uk writes:

<<

> Having a delusion is coverd by the usually safe {mi viska li'i
> sincrboa}

Is that {mi viska se li'i (zo'e) sincrboa}? -- Which is okay,
though it'd be nice to be able to do it without resorting to
tanru. Or is it {mi viska lo li'i sincrboa}? -- Which would mean
seeing an experience -- not really what is wanted.

>>
Oops! I see that someone has tinkered yet again with an unbroken concept to make a useless one (we all know where to find {lifri}, which to add insult to injusry uses {li'i} phrases as an object). I was thinking of the good old day when this idea first went round and it stood in the same relation to expreiences as {nu} does to events and so {viska lo li'i} made prefect sense, as good, anyhow, as {lifri lo nu}.
Sorry to see the old way go; especially since nothing was gained. --part1_189.e0bd356.2ab6f0f3_boundary--